AES CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Katrina-Related Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------The plaintiffs in the purported class-action suit "Comer, et al.v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.," which names AES Corp. as adefendant, are appealing the dismissal of their case to the theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In April 2006, a putative class-action complaint was filed inthe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippion behalf of certain individual plaintiffs and all residents andproperty owners in the State of Mississippi who allegedlysuffered harm as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and against thecompany and numerous unrelated companies, whose allegedgreenhouse gas emissions allegedly increased the destructivecapacity of Hurricane Katrina.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the court dismissed the case. The plaintiffshave filed their notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Fifth Circuit, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge L. T.Senter, Jr., presiding.

AMERICAN CENTURY: Sued in California Over Illegal Gambling----------------------------------------------------------American Century Cos. is facing a class-action complaint filedin the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia alleging it blew investors' money by putting it intoillegal gambling operations that were busted in the summer of2006, CourtHouse News Service reports.

These unlawful investments, the suit says, suffered significantlosses when the government began arresting principles of thegambling enterprises during a law enforcement crackdownbeginning in the summer 2003.

The complaint does not state how much of the plaintiff's moneythe defendants lost in the alleged gambling operations.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on whether:

(a) defendants' acts and conduct as alleged violated RICO;

(b) defendants breached their fiduciary and other duties to plaintiff;

AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Faces La. Lawsuits Over July 23 Oil Spill--------------------------------------------------------------American Commercial Lines, Inc., is facing several purportedclass-action lawsuits over an incident at the Mississippi Riverthat resulted in an oil discharge, according to the company'sAug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,2008.

The company has been notified that it has been named as adefendant in the following class action lawsuits, filed in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District ofLouisiana against the company and American Commercial Lines LLC(ACLLLC), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the company:

These claims stem from the incident on July 23, 2008, involvingone of ACLLLC's tank barges that was being towed by DRD TowingCompany, L.L.C., an independent towing contractor.

The tank barge was involved in a collision with the motor vesselTintomara, operated by Laurin Maritime, at Mile Marker 97 of theMississippi River in the New Orleans area. It was carryingapproximately 9,900 barrels of # 6 oil. The tank barge wasdamaged in the collision and partially sunk, while there was nodamage to the towboat. There were no injuries reported to thecrews of either vessel in the incident.

The Timtomara incurred minor damage. The amount of oildischarged from the barge is unknown at this time.

The actions include various allegations of adverse health andpsychological damages, destruction and loss of use of naturalresources, and seek unspecified economic and compensatorydamages for claims of negligence, strict liability, trespass,nuisance, and claims under Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

American Commercial Lines, Inc. -- http://www.aclines.com/-- is a marine transportation and service company. ACL provides bargetransportation and related services, and manufactures barges,towboats and other vessels, including ocean-going liquid tankbarges. Barge transportation accounts for the majority of theCompany's revenues, and includes the movement of grain, coal,steel, liquids and other bulk products in the U.S. ACL operatesin two primary business segments: transportation andmanufacturing. ACL's transportation segment includes bargetransportation operations in North America, and domesticfleeting facilities that provide fleeting, shifting, cleaningand repair services at various locations along the inlandwaterways. The manufacturing segment constructs marineequipment for external customers, as well as for the company'stransportation segment.

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Subsidiary Spin-Off Suit Dismissal Confirmed--------------------------------------------------------------Judge Joan N. Ericksen of the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Minnesota confirmed the dismissal of a class actioncomplaint against American Express' February 2005 spin-off ofits subsidiary, American Express Financial Advisors, andAmerican Express Financial Advisors' adoption of the Ameriprisebrand, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a putative class action brought by Judith Klosek andLinda Davenport against:

The case arises out of The American Express Company's decisionin February 2005 to spin off its subsidiary, AmericanExpress Financial Advisors, and American Express FinancialAdvisors' subsequent adoption of the Ameriprise brand.

The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, breach ofthe implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violationsof the Minnesota Franchise Act, and tortious interference withcontract. The defendants moved to dismiss.

In a Report and Recommendation dated June 3, 2008, the HonorableJeanne J. Graham, United States Magistrate Judge, recommendedthat the defendants' motions to dismiss be granted.

The plaintiffs objected, and the defendants responded. TheCourt has conducted a de novo review of the record.

According to CourtHouse, the plaintiffs begin their objectionsby arguing that the magistrate judge fundamentally misunderstoodtheir claims. They assert that the magistrate judgemisconstrued their claims as premised on an assertion thatDefendants could never replace the American Express brand withanother.

The plaintiffs expressly disclaim this assertion: "To be clear:Plaintiffs do not dispute that American Express FinancialAdvisors . . . retained the right to substitute the AmericanExpress brand," according to the report. The plaintiffs insteadmaintain that their claims are premised on the contention thatany brand substitution required that the new brand be well-recognized.

The Court rejects the plaintiffs' assertion that the magistratejudge misunderstood their claims. The magistrate judgerepeatedly acknowledged the plaintiffs' contention thatAmeriprise Financial Services breached its obligation to providea well-recognized brand and ultimately concluded that thefranchise agreements unambiguously indicate that AmeripriseFinancial Services had no obligation to supply a well-recognizedbrand.

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Courtoverrules the plaintiffs' objections.

The Court adopts the recommendation to dismiss this case andordered that:

On Dec. 13, 2005, a lawsuit purporting to be a class action wascommenced against AMR in Washington State Court, Spokane County(Class Action Reporter, March 5, 2008).

The complaint alleges that AMR billed patients and third-partypayors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 at ahigher level than contractually permitted. It also alleges thatthe company engaged in an ongoing practice of overchargingpatients under a contract sanctioned and monitored by citygovernment (Class Action Reporter, April 12, 2007).

The suit specifically alleges that patients picked up within thecity of Spokane are billed for more-expensive "advanced lifesupport" services when they only need cheaper "basic lifesupport". The ALS base rate is $480, compared with the BLS rateof $348.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Spokane residents Lori E.Davis-Bacon and Lorraine and Doug Bacon. It was certified as aclass action in June 2006.

However, the size and membership of the class has not yet beendetermined, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended June 30, 2008. The company also reported nofurther development in the matter in its regulatory filing.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California on Oct. 18, 2007, againstFastenal Co. on behalf of two former employees claiming torepresent all those employed in the store position of AssistantGeneral Manager in the U.S. within three years prior to thefiling date (four years for California employees) (Class ActionReporter, Feb. 26, 2008).

The suit alleges that Fastenal misclassified its AssistantGeneral Managers as exempt for purposes of the overtimeprovisions of the FLSA and California and Pennsylvania statestatutes. It also alleges that Assistant General Managers inCalifornia did not receive sufficient meal breaks and paid restperiods under the California Labor Code.

FIFTH THIRD: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Ohio Court--------------------------------------------------------------Fifth Third Bancorp is facing two purported securities fraudclass-action suits before the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of Ohio, according to its Aug. 7, 2008 Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The two putative class-action complaints were filed in June andJuly 2008 against the Bancorp and its chief executive officer,among other parties, alleging violations of federal securitieslaws related to disclosures made by Bancorp in press releasesand filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionregarding its quality and sufficiency of capital, credit lossesand related matters.

The suit is seeking unquantified damages on behalf of putativeclasses of persons who purchased the Bancorp's securities,interest, attorney and expert fees and other costs andlitigation expenses.

Fifth Third reported no new development in the matter itsAug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and MerchantDiscount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-JO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of New York, Judge John Gleeson, presiding.

FIFTH THIRD: First Circuit Yet to Rule in TJX Lawsuit Appeal------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has yet to ruleon the defendants' appeal of a series of rulings entered by theU.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in theconsolidated cases brought by financial institutions that nowfall under the caption "In Re TJX Security Breach Litigation,"which names Fifth Third Bancorp as one of the defendants.

Fifth Third was the transaction processor for the TJX companies,and therefore responsible for ensuring security of the cardinformation, the explains.

Initially, several putative class-action complaints were filedagainst the company in various federal and state courts. Thefederal cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel onMultidistrict Litigation and are now known as "In Re TJXSecurity Breach Litigation." The state court actions have beenremoved to federal court and have been consolidated into thatsame case.

The complaints relate to the alleged intrusion of The TJXCompanies, Inc.'s computer system and the potential theft of thecustomers' non-public information and alleged violations of theGramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Some of the complaints were filed by consumers and seekunquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of personswho transacted business at any one of TJX's stores during theperiod of the alleged intrusion. Another complaint was filed byfinancial institutions and seeks unquantified damages on behalfof other similarly situated entities that suffered losses inrelation to the alleged intrusion.

The U.S. District Court has granted Fifth Third's motion todismiss certain of the claims, but additional claims remainpending.

On Nov. 29, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District ofMassachusetts issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion forclass certification in the consolidated cases brought byfinancial institutions.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the District Court entered its final order inthe Financial Institution Track litigation:

-- denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint, without prejudice;

-- dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

-- transferring the case from the U.S District Court to the Massachusetts Superior Court in and for the County of Middlesex.

TJX Companies then filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the First Circuit as to that portion of the Court'sorder transferring the case to Massachusetts State Court and anemergency motion to stay the Massachusetts State Courtproceedings pending the appeal.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the First Circuit granted the request for stayuntil a further order by the Court.

Fifth Third then filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuitsolely as to that portion of the District Court's ordertransferring the case to the Massachusetts State Court.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appealin the First Circuit as to the entirety of the District Court'sDec. 18, 2007 Order and also as to all other prior "adverserulings" including, without limitation, the District Court'sdenial of class certification and dismissal of various claims.

Both TJX and the Bancorp amended their Notices of Appeal tolikewise appeal all adverse rulings by the District Court.

Fifth Third reported no new development in the matter itsAug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status on behalf of everyowner of the 50V500A model, says the defect makes thetelevisions useless for their intended purpose.

In the lawsuit against Hitachi America Ltd., filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of Texas,attorneys for Mr. Partida say Hitachi has known of the defectsince early 2005, but the company has continued to sell thedefective sets. Despite the company's knowledge of the problem,the lawsuit continues, Hitachi has been unable or unwilling todevelop a solution.

"Hitachi has been more than willing to take people's money forthese TV sets and they should be more than willing to fix them,"says attorney Eric D. Pearson, Esq., of Heygood, Orr, Reyes,Pearson & Bartolomei, who represents Mr. Partida in the case."In some cases, people paid $3,500 or more for these TVs. Youcan't take that kind of money and deliver a defective product."

HOPITAL HONORE: C. Difficile Victims' Family Launch $10MM Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Relatives of patients who either got infected or died from C.difficile diarrhea during an outbreak at a St. Hyacinthehospital in 2006 have launched a class action against the localhealth authority, seeking up to CDN$10 million in damages, TheGazette reports.

The Gazette recounts that the outbreak at Hopital Honore Mercierwas one of the worst in Quebec, killing 16 people. In total, 70patients picked up a virulent strain of Clostridium difficilewhile being treated in the hospital.

Mr. Menard added that the Honore Mercier outbreak is especiallytragic since Quebec had already dealt with C. difficileoutbreaks in 2004-2005, yet the South Shore community hospitaldid not appear to have learned from the experience.

According to The Gazette, a coroner's report in 2007 into theHonore Mercier outbreak blamed shoddy infection control andhospital cutbacks in maintenance and room cleanliness forcausing the outbreak. However, the report also noted that thesituation improved following a change in the administration.

The Gazette cites that one of those who died was 60-year-oldMarie-Andree Dorion, who was initially admitted to the hospitalto be treated for diverticulitis -- an inflammation of the partof the intestine. However, while she was in the hospital, Ms.Dorion contracted C. difficile and died following an emergencyoperation to remove her colon.

Ms. Dorion's sister, Sylvie Dorion, said that almost two yearsafter, she is still furious over what happened. Sylvie saidthat her family had been kept in the dark by the hospital whenher sister contracted C. difficile colitis. "The hospital hasnever apologized to my family over this," she added.

Mr. Menard has filed a request in Quebec Superior Court forauthorization to file a class action.

According to the report, officials at the Centre de sante et desservices sociaux Richelieu Yamaska -- which runs Honore Mericer-- refused to give a comment on the court action. However,hospital officials have said in the past that they dideverything possible to contain the outbreak and had been dealingwith a particularly virulent strain of spore-forming bacterium.

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Miller" Lawsuit-------------------------------------------------------------The parties in the matter, "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming Inc., etal.," which names International Game Technology, Inc., asdefendant, have entered into a stipulation that dismisses thelawsuit, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended June 30, 2008.

The complaint alleged that Acres directors breached theirfiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with theapproval of the merger transaction between Acres Gaming andInternational Game and sought to enjoin and void the mergeragreement among other forms of relief (Class Action Reporter,Feb. 12, 2008).

On Sept. 19, 2003, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for atemporary restraining order to prevent Acres stockholders fromvoting on the merger. The plaintiff then requested the NevadaSupreme Court to vacate the denial of the TRO and to enjoinAcres from holding its stockholder vote on the merger. TheNevada Supreme Court denied the petition.

In November 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint torecover damages. The defendants then pointed to the amendedcomplaint's failure to state a claim on which relief may begranted. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a third amendedcomplaint on Sept. 9, 2004.

On April 7, 2006, the defendants filed a Notice of Removal toU.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The plaintifffiled a motion to remand the action to state court, which wasgranted by order dated Aug. 15, 2006. Thus, on Nov. 30, 2006,the case was transferred to business court and discoverycontinues.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Oct. 5,2007, which request was later denied. The plaintiff then fileda petition for Writ of Mandamus, or in the alternative,prohibition seeking to have the Nevada Supreme Court vacate theDistrict Court's order denying class certification.

On May 9, 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court denied the plaintiff'spetition.

In August 2008, the parties to the action entered into aStipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice as to All Parties.

KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Agrees to Settle Derivative Suit in Tenn.---------------------------------------------------------------On August 21, 2008, King Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NYSE:KG) enteredinto a settlement with shareholders to settle a shareholderderivative lawsuit, that was pending in Chancery Court forSullivan County at Bristol, Tennessee and accused the company ,among other things, of breaching its fiduciary duty by certainformer officers and certain current and former directors byunderpaying commitments to Medicaid.

Beginning in March 2003, four purported shareholder derivativecomplaints were filed in Tennessee State Court alleging a breachof fiduciary duty by some of the Company’s current and formerofficers and directors (Corporate Litigation Reporter, Sept. 13,2007).

In June 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint,seeking to name as defendants additional current and formerofficers and directors and the Company’s independent auditorsand to add additional claims.

Under the settlement King Pharmaceuticals Inc agreed to makechanges to its corporate governance, including changes to itsinternal auditing procedures that would create separatepositions for both the chairman and CEO, new accountingpolicies, and duties for various committees on the board ofdirectors, and to pay $13.5 million plus escrow account interestfor counsel for the plaintiffs as full and complete compensationfor all their services in the action.

According to an Aug. 27, 2008 filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission, this amount will be paid on theCompany's behalf by its insurance carriers. The settlement issubject to court approval.

According to a press release dated from August 7, 2006, KingPharmaceuticals Inc. had already paid $38.25 million in theclass-action lawsuit settlement.

KLA-TENCOR: September Hearing Set for $65MM Securities Suit Deal----------------------------------------------------------------A tentative September 2008 hearing is set to consider finalapproval of a $65-million settlement in the matter, "In re KLA-Tencor Corp. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04065," which wasfiled against KLA-Tencor Corp., according to the company'sAug. 7, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

KLA-Tencor and various current and former directors and officersof the company were named as defendants in a putative securitiesclass-action suit filed on June 29, 2006, in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern District of California. Two similarcomplaints were filed later in the same court, and these weresubsequently consolidated with the first action.

The consolidated complaint alleges claims under Section 10(b)and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 14(a), Section 20(a), andSection 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as aresult of the company's past stock option grants and relatedaccounting and reporting. The suit seeks unspecified monetarydamages and other relief.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting ofpurchasers of the company's stock between June 30, 2001, andMay 22, 2006, who allegedly suffered losses as a result ofmaterial misrepresentations in the company's SEC filings andpublic statements during that period.

This litigation is at an early stage. Discovery has notcommenced, and the court has not yet determined whether theplaintiffs may sue on behalf of any class of purchasers.

The company and all other defendants filed motions to dismissthe case in June 2007. However, the dismissal motions have beentaken off calendar and stayed due to the agreement between theparties to resolve the suit.

On June 5, 2008, the court granted preliminary approval to theparties' settlement deal. Under the terms of the settlement,the company will be required to make a payment of $65 million tothe settlement class.

The settlement, which is subject to final court approval at ahearing now scheduled to occur in September 2008, provides forthe dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a fullrelease of KLA-Tencor and the other named defendants inconnection with the allegations raised by the plaintiffs and allmembers of the settlement class.

The suit is "In re KLA-Tencor Corp. Securities Litigation, No.C06-04065," filed in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins, presiding.

KLA-TENCOR: Wants "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" Lawsuit Thrown Out---------------------------------------------------------------KLA-Tencor Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a purported class-action suit -- "Crimi v. Barnholt et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-02249-CRB" -- filed in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California.

The plaintiff, Chris Crimi, filed the putative class-actioncomplaint on Sept. 4, 2007, in the Superior Court of the Stateof California for the County of Santa Clara against the companyand certain of its current and former directors and officers.The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of personswho held KLA-Tencor common stock between Sept. 20, 2002, andSept. 27, 2006.

The company filed a motion to stay the case pending theresolution of other option-related litigation, as well as ademurrer asking the court to dismiss the case on the ground thatthe claims have no merit.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the court sustained the company's demurrer andgranted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Theplaintiff filed an amended complaint reasserting his originalclaims and adding a claim under section 1507 of the CaliforniaCorporations Code on April 1, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, the company removed the suit to the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of California, andagain filed a motion to dismiss the action.

The plaintiff has again amended his complaint, and the companyexpects to file a further motion to dismiss, to be heard inSeptember 2008, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

KLA-TENCOR CORP: Wants Class Claim in Derivative Suit Dismissed---------------------------------------------------------------KLA-Tencor Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a class-actionclaim filed in a derivative lawsuit that remains pending in theDelaware Chancery Court.

As part of the derivative lawsuit, which was filed on July 21,2006, a plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor shareholderrecently asserted a separate putative class action claim againstthe company and certain of its current and former directors andofficers alleging that shareholders incurred damage due topurported dilution of KLA-Tencor common stock resulting fromhistorical stock option granting practices.

The company has moved to dismiss this claim, according to thecompany's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

KLA-Tencor Corp. -- http://www.kla-tencor.com/-- is a supplier of process control and yield management solutions, for thesemiconductor and related microelectronics industries.

LAWNMOWER MAKERS: Face South Dakota Suit Over Mowers' Horsepower----------------------------------------------------------------The Class Action Reporter reported on Aug. 20, 2008, that aclass action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey charging thatmanufacturers of lawnmowers have purposely misstatedhorsepower valuations on their products in order to justifyhigher prices.

Josh Verges, of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, writes thatanother suit against the same defendants has been filed by threeSouth Dakota residents.

Argus Leader relates that the suit, filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt, alleges that the leading lawnmower makers have conspiredto lie about the amount of power in their engines.Specifically, the suit targets:

The report notes that plaintiffs Mike Kaitfors of Spearfish andDoug Eidahl of Mitchell allege an ongoing conspiracy to misleadthe public and conceal the true horsepower of their mowers.They claim that more expensive mowers with higher horsepowerratings actually contain identical engines as cheaper mowers.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs say the horsepower ratings reportedto the government under the Clean Air Act are far different fromthat advertised to consumers.

"The true horsepower of Defendants' engines is significantlyless than the horsepower represented by Defendants inadvertising, marketing and selling their lawn mowers and lawnmower engines to the public," the complaint states.

Messrs. Kaitfors and Eidahl seek to represent all South Dakotanswho have purchased a gas-powered lawn mower up to 30 horsepowerfrom one of the defendants since 1994.

The suit says that more than $5 million is at stake if the classaction is certified, the report notes.

According to CNN Money, Judge Saris granted the company's motionto dismiss the case, saying the plaintiffs, led by the NewEngland Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, failed to show thatcompetition was hurt by a "conspiracy to increase prices."

The report recounts that the suit alleged that McKessoncollaborated with First DataBank, a publishing unit of HearstCorp., to inflate drug prices through lists of so-called averagewholesale prices for brand-name drugs.

In this proposed national class action, the plaintiffs allegedthat McKesson, a drug wholesaler, engaged in unlawful price-fixing by entering into an agreement with First DataBank, apublishing company, to inflate the average wholesale price fornumerous prescription pharmaceuticals beginning in late 2001.The plaintiffs alleged that McKesson's price-fixing schemeviolates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various stateantitrust laws. The proposed class includes third-party payorsand consumers that paid for the drugs.

The allegations in this complaint are based on the same setof operative facts as alleged in the plaintiffs' civilRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) suit,captioned "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. FirstDataBank, Inc., 1:05-cv-11148."

McKesson moved to dismiss the action on the ground that theplaintiffs failed to allege any anti-competitive effects fromthe conspiracy to increase prices. This motion was granted byJudge Saris.

MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiffs Prepare for $12BB RICO Trial in Dec.--------------------------------------------------------------Attorneys representing consumers in a case accusing McKessonCorp. (NYSE: MCK) of illegally rigging the price of virtuallyevery prescription drug have crossed the final proceduralhurdles and are now preparing for a trial set for December 1 inU.S. District Court in Boston.

Steve W. Berman, Esq., filed the suit in 2006 on behalf ofthird-party payers and consumers, claiming that McKesson engagedin a scheme to fraudulently inflate the price of more than 400prescription drugs, including blockbusters such as Prozac,Lipitor, Zocor, Vioxx and more.

On March 18, 2008, Judge Patti Saris for a second time rejectedMcKesson's motions to dismiss the case, citing the strength ofthe evidence, which includes volumes of e-mail exchanges byMcKesson executives discussing the price-fixing scheme. Theplaintiffs in the case peg the damages at $4 billion, which putsMcKesson at risk of a $12-billion judgment with the tripling ofdamages allowed by the RICO statute under which the suits werefiled.

RICO -- the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act-- allows for civil action against those believed to participatein conspiracies to commit crimes or illegally reap profits. Thelaw calls for the disgorgement of ill-gotten profits and thetripling of damages.

i. consumer purchasers, which includes anyone who made a co- payment for prescription medication from August 1, 2001, through May 15, 2005; and

ii. all third-party payers that made a payment or reimbursement based on the inflated average wholesale price (AWP) during the class period.

The suit claims McKesson and First DataBank, a publishingcompany, reached a secret agreement on how the average wholesaleprice would be set for brand-name drugs and, in doing so, raisedthe spread between the published AWP and the actual acquisitioncosts from 20 to 25 percent in an effort to increase profits.

According to documents cited in the case, McKesson communicatedthe price increase to First DataBank, who published theinformation, even amid questions by manufacturers who recognizedthe impact to consumers and third-party payers. McKesson did soto raise the profits for its large clients like Rite Aid andWalgreen's.

Earlier this year, First DataBank settled with plaintiffs,leaving McKesson as the sole defendant. As reported in theClass Action Reporter on July 15, 2008, First DataBank hasagreed to pay $1 million to settle the purported class actionlawsuit.

For more information on this case and to sign up as a consumeror third-party payer you can visit the Hagens Berman Web siteat: http://www.hbsslaw.com/

The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al.v. First Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the District ofMassachusetts, Judge Patti B. Saris, presiding.

OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: New York Court Approves $9M Suit Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New Yorkapproved a proposed $9,000,000 settlement in the class-actionsuit entitled "In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. SecuritiesLitigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-05505-JS-WDW," according to OSIPharma's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On or about Dec. 16, 2004, several purported shareholder class-action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for theEastern District of New York against the company, certain of itscurrent and former executive officers, and the members of itsboard of directors. These lawsuits were brought on behalf ofthose who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's commonstock during certain periods in 2004.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff who, on Feb. 17, 2006,filed a consolidated amended class action complaint seeking torepresent a class of all persons who purchased or otherwiseacquired the company's common stock during the period fromApril 26, 2004, through Nov. 22, 2004.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants madematerial misstatements and omissions concerning the survivalbenefit associated with the company's product, Tarceva, and thesize of the potential market of Tarceva upon the Food and DrugAdministration's approval of the drug. The complaint allegesviolations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatorydamages and other relief.

On April 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss theconsolidated amended complaint. The Court then granted in partand denied in part the dismissal motion. Specifically, theCourt dismissed claims against some of the individual defendantsand dismissed the Section 11 and 15 claims, but granted theplaintiff 30 days leave to replead the Section 11 claim inaccordance with the Court's order and to renew the Section 15claim.

The plaintiff did not amend, and thus those claims weredismissed with prejudice.

The parties have subsequently reached an agreement to settle theaction for $9.0 million, which deal was approved by the court inMay 2008. Approximately $500,000 will be paid by the company,and the balance of the settlement will be paid by its insurer.

The suit is "In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. SecuritiesLitigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-05505-JS-WDW," filed in the U.S.District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under JudgeJoanna Seybert, with referral to Judge William D. Wall.

PAYPAL INC: E-mails Sent in Consumer Protection Programs Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Garden City Group sent an e-mail to certain PayPal users about asettlement in a class action lawsuit against PayPal filed in2005, Ina Steiner writes for AuctionBytes Blog.

In March 2005, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in New Yorkstate court on behalf of themselves and the Class. The lawsuitalleges claims against PayPal and eBay arising out ofrepresentations contained in certain provisions of the PayPalUser Agreement regarding PayPal's policies and practices forresponding to refund requests (or "Buyer Complaints") from thosecustomers who pay for transactions through PayPal using fundsfrom sources other than a credit card.

In particular, the lawsuit alleges that PayPal's policies andpractices constitute deceptive trade practices, fraudulentinducement and misrepresentations, and breach of the PayPal UserAgreement. The lawsuit also alleges claims against Essex, acompany that sold goods through eBay, arising out of allegedmisrepresentations about Essex's goods and services.

In April 2005, this lawsuit was removed to federal court, whereit is currently pending in the United States District Court forthe Eastern District of New York. Senior United States DistrictCourt Judge I. Leo Glasser is in charge of this action.

In 2006, PayPal reached a $3.5 million preliminary settlementagreement with a proposed class of PayPal customers in an actionpending in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn.

Under the terms of the settlement agreements, PayPal did notadmit any liability for any of the allegations in the case.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New Yorkwill hold a fairness hearing on November 17, 2008.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objections is on October 31,2008. Deadline to file claims is on December 14, 2008.

The suit is "Steele, et al. v. Paypal, Inc., et al., CaseNumber: 1:2005cv01720," filed in the U.S. District Court for theEastern District of New York, Senior-Judge I. Leo Glasser,presiding, with referral to Magistrate-Judge Viktor V.Pohorelsky.

R&G FINANCIAL: Amended Allocation Plan in Securities Suit Filed---------------------------------------------------------------The lead counsel in "In re R&G Financial Corporation SecuritiesLitigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," submitted tothe United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York for its approval an amended plan of allocation for the$51 million settlement of this action.

The amended plan of allocation now includes specific provisionsfor R&G's Noncumulative Perpetual Monthly Income Preferred Stock-- Series A, B, C and D (the "Preferred Shares"), which, aspublicly-traded securities of R&G during the Class Period, arepart of the Class and Settlement in this action.

The class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court forthe Southern District of New York seeking damages for violationsof federal securities laws on behalf of all investors whopurchased R&G common stock from April 21, 2003, through andincluding April 25, 2005.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and therules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.

According to the complaint, R&G's financial statements werematerially false and misleading when made because the defendantsfailed to disclose:

-- that the company's earnings quality had been significantly weakened by the company's use of more aggressive assumptions to generate gain on sale income, as well as to the value it retained in its interest only residuals in securitization transactions;

-- that R&G's methodology used to calculate the fair value of its IO residual interests was incorrect and caused the company to overstate its financial results by at least $50 million;

-- that the company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

-- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the company; and

-- that as a result, the value of the company's net income and financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On April 25, 2005, after the close of trading, R&G shocked theinvesting public when it announced that it would restate itsearnings for 2003 and 2004.

On this news, R&G stock fell $8.14 per share, or 35 percent, toclose at $15.04 on April 26, 2005, a two-year low.

Also named defendants in the complaint are Susquehanna Corp., ofDelaware, and its parent company, Eteroutremer, of Belgium, aswas a former Rockwool manager.

The plaintiffs claim Rockwool dumped toxic chemicals at or nearthe plant from 1974 to 1982 and that Rockwool buried hazardouswaste near the plant and in a local quarry.

The report states that the Missouri Department of NaturalResources and the Environmental Protection Agency recently toldCameron residents that soil tests near the plant and quarryrevealed high levels of lead and arsenic, but that the levelswere not high enough to threaten health.

Sixty-eight Cameron residents returned surveys reporting casesof brain tumors to the Missouri Department of Health and SeniorServices as part of an investigation of whether there was acancer cluster in the town, the report says.

SANOFI-AVENTIS: Faces Ill. Suit Over Prescription Drug "Ketek"--------------------------------------------------------------Sanofi-Aventis is facing a class-action complaint filed in theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinoisalleging it fraudulently promoted its prescription drug Ketek(telithromycin) for off-label uses and it damaged patients'livers, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiff, Dorothy Ray, brings this class action againstSanofi-Aventis, U.S., LLC and Sanofi-Aventis, who conspired toconceal facts and evidence regarding the dangerous side effectsof the prescription drug Ketek by engaging in conduct andactivities for the purpose of concealing, falsifying, endorsing,and staging clinical studies that would conceal a multitude ofside effects, including severe liver damage and death, in orderto realize billions of dollars in profits from the sale ofKETEK.

The complaint alleges that through a series of fraudulentschemes the defendants implemented, calculated and engaged infraudulent activities in furtherance of their scheme.

The suit says that the defendants unlawfully marketed andpromoted KETEK through its conspiracies, and deliberatelymislead physicians and consumers into believing that KETEK wassafe and effective. The plaintiff and members of the plaintiffclass suffered injuries resulting from the defendants' illegaland fraudulent activities.

The plaintiff and the members of the class seek to recoverdamages suffered as a result of these schemes under sections1962(c) and 1962(d) of the Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations Act.

The plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf ofall persons residing in the United States who purchased, wereprescribed and ingested KETEK manufactured by Defendants.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

a. whether defendants' transmission of payments paid to physicians, ghost-authors and others to make fraudulent statements in furtherance of the scheme to promote KETEK constitutes wire fraud;

b. whether defendants' agreement and activities in furtherance of its agreement with members of the KETEK Marketing Enterprise in furtherance of the scheme to promote KETEK, constitute an "enterprise" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(4) that is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce;

c. whether the policies and practices described herein constitute defendants' conduct or participation, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity;

g. whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to recover compensatory, exemplary, punitive, and other damages as a result of defendants' fraudulent and unlawful conduct;

h. what is the proper mechanism for assessing and awarding damages and administering relief to class members, including the relief to reduce the threat of future harm to class members;

i. whether defendants' conduct in selling and promoting and marketing and distributing KETEK fell below the duty of care owed by defendants to plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class;

j. whether the defendants negligently, recklessly, or intentionally concealed information about the safety of KETEK from the plaintiff and plaintiff class, as well as their physicians, hospitals, healthcare professionals, and the FDA;

n. whether plaintiff class members have sustained irreparable harm and whether they are entitled to equitable relief including restitution and refund and, if so, the nature and extent of such damages;

o. whether the plaintiff class is entitled to compensatory damages and, if so, the nature and extent of such damages;

p. whether defendants are liable for punitive damages and, if so, how much is necessary and appropriate to punish it for its conduct, deter others and fulfill the policies and purposes of punitive and exemplary damages;

q. how any and all punitive and exemplary damages awarded to plaintiffs should be equitably allocated among the plaintiff and the plaintiff class;

r. whether the defendants acted to defraud, misrepresent, and deceive the plaintiff and the plaintiff class;

s. whether defendants failed to adequately test its products; and

t. whether the defendants failed to adequately warn of the adverse effects of KETEK.

The plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor ofthe plaintiff and the plaintiff class members and against theDefendants in the amount provided by law, together with punitivedamages to deter such conduct in the future, plus treble damagesand attorneys fees as provided by the RICO act, and grant suchfurther relief as may be proper.

The suit is "Dorothy Ray, et al. v. Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., LLC,et al., Docket No. 3:08-cv-612-DRH," filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of Illinois.

SCOR HOLDING: Reaches 2 Proposed Settlements in Securities Case---------------------------------------------------------------The class Action "In Re SCOR Holding (Switzerland AG SecuritiesLitigatio, Case No. 04 Civ. 7897 (DLC)," filed in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York has beencertified as a class action and that the Lead Plaintiff hasreached two proposed settlements to resolve all claims in theaction.

One settlement is with SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG, formerlyknown as Converium Holding AG, and the named individual officerdefendants for $75,000,000 in cash.

The other settlement is with Zurich Financial Services ("ZFS")for $9,600,000 in cash.

The certified Class has been defined to include:

(i) all persons and entities who purchased Converium American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") during the Class Period and

(ii) all persons and entities who, during the Class Period, were U.S. residents and purchased Converium Common Stock on the SWX Swiss Exchange during the Class Period.

A hearing will be held on December 12, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. at theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Sparkletts Water, Inc. is one of the country's finest providersof pure, refreshing bottled water. It is also the officialbottled water of many well-known theme parks, attractions andprofessional team sponsorships across Southern California.

SYSTEMAX INC: N.Y. Transfers "Vukson" Lawsuit to Florida Court--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York hasgranted a motion that seeks to transfer the purported class-action suit "Vukson v. TigerDirect, Inc. et al., Case No.2:2007-cv-04353," which names Systemax Inc. and two subsidiaries-- TigerDirect and OnRebate -- as defendants, to the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

On Oct. 18, 2007, Kevin Vukson filed a class action complaintagainst TigerDirect, Inc., OnRebate.com Inc. and Systemax Inc.on behalf of himself and all OnRebate customers whose rebateswere denied or delayed. OnRebate.com Inc. is a rebateprocessing company owned by Systemax.

Mr. Vukson's complaint alleges that since 2004, Systemax,TigerDirect, and OnRebate have conducted a deceptive andunlawful enterprise by failing to pay rebates that should havebeen paid and delaying unnecessarily the payment of otherrebates that were paid.

Systemax, TigerDirect and OnRebate have moved to dismiss thecomplaint and moved to transfer the matter to the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of Florida.

The court has ruled in favor of Systemax with respect to themotion to transfer the complaint to the U.S. District Court forthe Southern District of Florida. However, the court has notruled on the motion to dismiss, according to the company'sAug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Vukson v. TigerDirect, Inc. et al., Case No 2:2007-cv-04353," filed in the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of New York, Judge Arthur D. Spatt, presiding.

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Faces Lawsuits Over HP Labels in Lawnmowers--------------------------------------------------------------Tecumseh Products, Inc., continues to face several purportedclass-action suits over the printing of inaccurate horsepowerlabels on certain of its lawnmowers, according to the company'sAug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Original Litigation

A nationwide class-action lawsuit filed against the company andother defendants alleged that the horsepower labels on theproducts the plaintiffs purchased, which included productsmanufactured by the company's former Engine & Power Trainbusiness, were inaccurate (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 14,2008).

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class of all persons inthe U.S. who, beginning Jan. 1, 1995, through the present,purchased a lawnmower containing a two-stroke or four-stroke gascombustible engine up to 20 horsepower that was manufactured bydefendants.

In April of 2008, the court issued a written opinion dismissingthe complaint, but subject to the ability to re-plead certainclaims.

New Litigation

In July, 2008, the plaintiffs re-filed a class action complaintin Illinois and have filed new class action complaints infederal courts in New Jersey and California asserting claims onbehalf of consumers in each of those states with respect tolawnmower purchases from Jan. 1, 1994, to the present.

Tecumseh Products Co. -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is a manufacturer of hermetic compressors for residential andcommercial refrigerators, freezers, water coolers,dehumidifiers, window air conditioning units, and residentialand commercial central system air conditioners and heat pumps.

WMG ACQUISITION: N.Y. Court Considers Dismissal of Pricing Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkhas yet to rule on a motion that seeks the dismissal of aconsolidated class action suit over the pricing of digital musicdownloads, which named WMG Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary ofWarner Music Group Corp., as one of the defendants.

Originally, more than 30 putative class actions concerning thepricing of digital music downloads have been filed. On Aug. 15,2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigationconsolidated these actions for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York, under thecaption, "In Re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No.1:2006-md-01780."

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007,alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the releaseof their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricingof CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. It seeksunspecified compensatory, statutory, and treble damages.

All defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismissthe consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007. The Courtheard an argument on this motion on March 25, 2008, and reservedits decision, according to its Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No.1:06-md-01780-LAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York, Judge Loretta A. Preska,presiding.

* Victims of Illegal Rallies in Korea May Demand Compensation-------------------------------------------------------------Victims of illegal rallies in Korea will be able to sue forcompensation if the Presidential Council on NationalCompetitiveness and the ruling Grand National Party have theirway, The Chosun Ilbo reports.

According to the report, the Council and the Grand NationalParty recently agreed to introduce class action suits as a wayto compensate victims of illegal collective actions such asillegal rallies and strikes for damage.

"In many cases, victims of illegal rallies cannot even conceivethe idea of bringing a claim to court due to the huge amounts ofcourt costs and complicated processes despite the small amountof damage for each victim," an official with the Council toldChosun Ilbo. "But if class action suits are possible, then allvictims of such illegal rallies can easily get compensation asthey can benefit from the outcome of one person's lawsuit."

The report relates that the Council is expected to hold a publichearing on Wednesday to gather expert opinion on the legality ofthe system and get a bill passed by the National Assembly duringits regular session.

"The majority opinion in judicial circles is that it is possibleto file a class action lawsuit against civic organizations, notnecessarily the state or enterprises," a presidential officialsaid. "We expect that it will contribute to improving theprotest culture, considering that such a system will putsubstantial pressure on civic organizations that have so far ledillegal, violent protests."

* Susman Godfrey Wins 3 Cases In One Day in Tex. Supreme Court--------------------------------------------------------------The litigation boutique, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., won threedifferent appeals for three different clients in three differentopinions issued by the Texas Supreme Court.

In the first case, "Forest Oil Corporation, et al. v. JamesArgyle McAllen, et al.," the Texas Supreme Court reversed thecourt of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court withinstructions to compel arbitration in accordance with theparties' written agreement. The plaintiffs, Mr. McAllen andothers, had ignored their written agreement to pursue theirclaims in an arbitration in Houston, Texas, and, instead, hadfiled a lawsuit in state court in McAllen, Hidalgo County,Texas, in the city named after Mr. McAllen's ancestors.

The Supreme Court agreed and recognized, as Mr. Harrison hadargued, that "sophisticated parties represented by counsel in anarm's-length transaction negotiated a settlement agreement thatincluded clear and broad waiver-of-reliance and release-of-claims language." The Court concluded that the "unequivocaldisclaimer of reliance in the parties' bargained-for settlementagreement conclusively negates as a matter of law the element ofreliance needed to support McAllen's fraudulent-inducementclaim." The underlying dispute involves allegations ofenvironmental contamination and intentional battery withallegedly radioactive oil well tubing. Susman Godfrey attorneysJohnny Carter and Rick Hess also worked on the Supreme Courtbriefs and on all other aspects of the case.

In the second case, "In re Poly-America, L.P." the Texas SupremeCourt granted conditionally a petition for mandamus to SusmanGodfrey's client, Poly-America, LP. The Texas Supreme Courtheld that Poly-America's arbitration agreement was enforceableand that the trial court had not abused its discretion when itgranted the company's motion to compel arbitration. SusmanGodfrey partner Erica Harris, Esq., represented Poly-America,LP.

In the third case, "Zurich American Insurance Co., et al. v.Nokia, Incorporated No. 06-1030," the Texas Supreme Court heldthat Zurich American Insurance Company, Federal InsuranceCompany and National Union Fire Insurance Company had a duty todefend Susman Godfrey's client, Nokia, Inc., in a series ofclass actions pending around the U.S. The ruling is avindication for Nokia which has spent millions successfullydefending these claims. Nokia hired Susman Godfrey partner EricMayer, Esq., after losing on this issue in the trial court.Mayer and Susman Godfrey lawyers Brian Melton, Ian Crosby andLexie White argued that Nokia's insurers wrongfully deniedcoverage. The ruling by the Texas Supreme Court now opens theway for Nokia to recover millions in defense costs and fees fromthis group of insurers. Mayer argued the appeal for Nokia.

CHINA SHENGHOU: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York---------------------------------------------------------------The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., commenced a lawsuit in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of New York onbehalf of purchasers of China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings,Inc. common stock during the period between July 23, 2007, andAugust 20, 2008.

The complaint charges that CSP and certain of its officers anddirectors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleadingstatements pertaining to CSP's business prospects and condition,and filing materially false financial statements with the SEC.

On August 20, 2008, the Company announced that its previouslyissued financial statements for the fiscal periods endedJune 30, September 30, and December 30, 2007, and fiscal quarterended March 31, 2008, should no longer be relied upon and wouldbe restated due to certain accounting errors, internal controlissues and related matters. News that the Company's financialstatements must be restated caused the Company's stock price tofall dramatically damaging investors.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 22,2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

GT SOLAR: Nixon Raiche Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.H.-------------------------------------------------------------Nixon, Raiche, Vogelman, Barry & Slawsky, P.A. filed a classaction suit in the United States District Court for the Districtof New Hampshire against GT Solar International, Inc., andcertain of its officers and directors that alleges violations ofthe Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons or entitieswho purchased or acquired the common stock of GT Solar pursuantor traceable to the Company's false and misleading RegistrationStatement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company'sJuly 23, 2008 initial public offering.

Also named as defendants are certain underwriters of the IPO.

The Complaint alleges that on July 23, 2008, GT Solaraccomplished its IPO of 30.3 million shares at $16.50 per sharefor proceeds of $500 million. As further alleged, on July 24,2008, in its first day of trading, GT Solar's common stockclosed at $14.59 per share.

However, as alleged, before the market opened on July 25, 2008,LDK Solar Co, Ltd., GT Solar's largest customer, issued a pressrelease announcing it had signed a contract to purchase the sametype of equipment it was purchasing from GT Solar from one of GTSolar's competitors and on this disclosure the price of GTSolar's stock declined to as low as $9.30 per share beforeclosing at $12.59 per share on July 25, 2008, representing a 24%decline from the IPO price.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for theIPO failed to disclose the true extent of the risks surroundingthe Company's relationship with LDK, including the fact that GTSolar was at imminent risk of losing out on a contract forfuture orders from LDK, its single largest customer.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 30,2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

PERINI CORP: Izard Nobel Commences Mass. Securities Fraud Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significantexperience representing investors in prosecuting claims ofsecurities fraud, disclosed that a lawsuit seeking class actionstatus has been filed in the United States District Court forthe District of Massachusetts on behalf of all those whopurchased the common stock of Perini Corp. between November 2,2006, and January 17, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Perini and certain of its officersand directors violated federal securities laws by issuingmaterially false statements that failed to disclose:

(i) the developer of Perini's Las Vegas, Nevada projects, including the Cosmopolitan Resort & Casino Project, was experiencing financial problems because it failed to secure financing for the entire project and was dependent upon raising the remainder of the financing from the expected sale of residential units. However, the proceeds from the residential unit sales were based on unrealistic and aggressive prices at a time when the condo market in Las Vegas, Nevada was extremely weak;

(ii) that the Company's Las Vegas projects were being delayed, and could possibly be halted;

(iii) that the developer was at risk of defaulting on its construction loan; and

(iv) that Perini's future revenue was dependent upon the Las Vegas projects.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 20,2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

SIGNALIFE INC: Vianale Files South Carolina Securities Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP filed a class actionlawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of SouthCarolina on August 28, 2008, on behalf of purchasers of thesecurities of Signalife, Inc., between January 29, 2004, andApril 11, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint names Signalife and several of its present andformer officers as defendants.

Signalife claims to research, develop and market wireless heartmonitoring devices in the United States. The complaint allegesthat Signalife (formerly known as Recom Managed Systems, Inc.and before that, Mt. Olympus Enterprises, Inc.), violatedSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff alleges that Signalife issued false positivestatements about the Company's ability to manufacture and marketits Fidelity 100 Monitor System, a supposedly wireless heartmonitoring device. Despite years of highly positive statementsabout its heart monitor, Signalife has had virtually no sales,and the Company has never had a product that was commerciallyviable. As a result, Signalife's stock was artificiallyinflated during the Class Period. Signalife's stock dropped onApril 11, 2008, on unprecedented volume of 3,752,100 shares,when the truth came to light that Signalife's Fidelity 100monitor system was unsalable. The Company recently announcedits imminent delisting from AMEX, and its stock price hasslumped to 6 cents.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 28,2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent research,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited withoutprior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believedto be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.